In light of some recent threads that have been started in other topic areas of AR, and in light of some of the recent threads in both the African and American hunting sections as of late,I am just curious to as to what people are really thinking.

Question:
Whom do you feel is posing a greater threat to the future of hunting worldwide?

Choices:
The anti-hunting movement.
Hunters themselves?

 

No question. The anti-hunting movement.

+1

+2!!!

Dumb poll. Why even ask?

probably the dumbest poll i have ever seen.

+3!!!

It is true that the anti's are funding all of the propaganda that sways the opinion of the general public. But we are also often our own enemies in the eyes of the general public. Fighting amongst ourselves, violating known laws, and plain just acting stupid. We are not helping our cause.

It is funny that this question should come up now. For some reason the idea that "hunters are hurting our sport" has been on my mind for the last several days.

I voted that the antis are the biggest threat, and I believe that they are the biggest threat by a large margin.

But, many of us hunters are hurting our sport in many ways. The racist crap that so many spout on forums such as this is one example. The "good ole boy" hunting shows sure don't help. Some of the commercials for hunting products are even worse. Littering in the woods by hunters is inexcusable, yet I see it all the time.

If hunting is to survive we hunters need to clean-up ranks. Also, we need to present our sport as a mainstream pursuit, not as the pastime of rednecks or the ultra rich.

We need to place an emphasis on the diversity within hunting(some publications/organizations seem to be making an effort).

We also need more women in the sport(a lot more). It will be hard for anyone to look at hunting as an "Good ole boy" club if we have a strong female presence.

If you have daughters, you owe it to our sport(and to them) to do everything you can to get them interested in hunting. My 2 and a half year old daughter is already shooting ducks, geese and deer each time we go hiking(she holds up her imaginary gun and says: "Bang! Bang! I got two daddy!" We then eat "them" for dinner. Yes, I am proud.)

All that we can do to the anti-hunters is debunk their arguments with facts. In reality their are fewer anti-hunters than there are hunters, but the fence sitters outnumber both groups combined. It is with the fence-sitters(the general public) that we can make headway.

Let's see, in the past few months, we have had several threads in the African Hunting/American Hunting topic sections and even one at least in the Bird Hunting topic area, that if viewed by someone, not familiar with how close knit and supportive hunters are of each other, might get the wrong idea.

Looking back at all of the uproar over the picture of the immature lion, the 70 or so pages concerning Blair Outfitting, the issue concerning PHASA, the friendly banter about Hornady's television show, and the list drags on out a ways, including topics where supposedly legal/ethical hunters argue opposite sides on poaching issues.

I firmly believe that hunters, as a group are polarizing themselves into factions, and that the more these factions seperate, the easier it will be for the anti's to achieve their goals.

Believe me wrong if you choose, but just look at the topics I listed and notice the tone of them and the direction they go.

I know if I were an anti hunter I would feel strongly encouraged to just set back and watch hunters tear theirselves apart over oft times petty/personal, ideas/beliefs concerning legal hunting practices and personal ethics.

It appears fairly easy for everyone to jump in and say that anti's are the enemy, because they are. It is harder to look around and admit to the fact, that many times hunters, as a group are much more ready to diagree about hunting related issues than agree on them. And because of those divisions it will be easier for our true enemies to win.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
It is harder to look around and admit to the fact, that many times hunters, as a group are much more ready to diagree about hunting related issues than agree on them. And because of those divisions it will be easier for our true enemies to win.

I really don't see how hunters discussing/debating issues in our sport hurts us.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that we debate complex issues in our sport shows us to be the thoughtful people we are.

If we close ranks in an attempt to present a "united front" we will be no better than the anti-hunter wackos.

quote:

As far as I am concerned, the fact that we debate complex issues in our sport shows us to be the thoughtful people we are.

Case in point, you are a hunter, I am a hunter, we can argue a point to death/agree to disagree, in the end, to us as hunters it is just a difference of opinions that we will possibly never see eye to eye on. The anti forces viewing such arguements, and that is what they are, view them as chinks in the armor hunters claim will keep the antis from winning.

quote:

If we close ranks in an attempt to present a "united front" we will be no better than the anti-hunter wackos.

Yet closing ranks is just what the NRA/DSC/SCI and other organizations concerned with preserving our hunting/shooting heritage encourage us to do.

So you believe that the anti's view the infighting among hunters, and yes it is infighting, as a healthy facet of a supportive group interested in saving what they enjoy.

I have a bad feeling that they look at it as more like a really disfunctional family that can not or will not agree on even basic issues such as legal hunting practices versus individual ethics.

I really don't see how hunters discussing/debating issues in our sport hurts us.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that we debate complex issues in our sport shows us to be the thoughtful people we are.

In debating/discussing sport hunting issues in public is an invitation to repercussions, albeit negative from the anti-hunting groups as has been proved time and again.
In fact most of the time we are feeding them with information that should never have appeared in print!
It should have appeared obvious by now that they do not consider us "thoughtful" in any of our actions.

I think as agroup, hunters are extremely thoughtful people, just some times short sighted in the goals of the folks that want to stop us from doing what we do. As a group we try to reason with these folks and present facts, yet we do not understand the basic premise that the anti's care nothing about stopping hunting, their goal is to control another group of humans. Hunting is their cause celebre now. If they get that stopped they will move on to something else.

quote:

Originally posted by brent ebeling:
It is true that the anti's are funding all of the propaganda that sways the opinion of the general public. But we are also often our own enemies in the eyes of the general public. Fighting amongst ourselves, violating known laws, and plain just acting stupid. We are not helping our cause.

I have difficulty in us as hunters allowing the anti-hunters to define what a "hunter" is, or is not. Someone with a rifle in hand who violates known laws is NOT an hunter. He is at best a criminall shooter of animals. If you include all these violaters of hunting laws and people with rifles or other attempting to kill animals as "hunters", then what you define as hunters probably poses the bigger threat to the real hunters than the whole anti-hunting movenment! If you leave these lawbreakers and stupids out of the definition of "hunters" then obviously the anti-hunting grouping poses a real threat to hunting.

In good hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by fujotupu:
(the anti-hunting groups)It should have appeared obvious by now that they do not consider us "thoughtful" in any of our actions.

Crazyhourse and fujotupu

As I have said, I could care less what the antis think of us. I am only concerned with what the general public thinks of us. They will be the ones deciding the issues.

One of the reasons that the general public has such a negative view of the NRA is due to the NRA's perceived "zealotry".

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
probably the dumbest poll i have ever seen.

+4

quote:

One of the reasons that the general public has such a negative view of the NRA is due to the NRA's perceived "zealotry".

No arguement from me on that, I do not belong to the NRA and haven't for a long time. Just like I don't buy into Ted Nugent's antics concerning hunting either.

The anti's do not think anymore of us than wanting to see hunting taken away from us. period.

As I alluded too and maybe not real plainly, for someone, even a hunter that has never viewed this site or maybe any other internet hunting site, to come on one of these sites and view some of the discussions that take place, they might be put off. A non-hunter, not an anti hunter, but just someone cruising the internet and looking in on one of the sites and seeing one of the arguments that has degraded into a pissing contest, could get a bad impression of how hunters actually feel toward each other, not the sport in general.

In real life I imagine a lot of us could get along and be quite civil toward each other, posibbly being able to actually discuss various topics with out becoming adversarial. It does not seem like a lot of us are able to do that when internet anonimity allows us to not have to actually be looking at each other.

I just happen to think and it is just my opinion, that hunters as a group, focus too much, too often, on the differences in how they feel the sport should be under taken instead of focusing on the concepts of legal verus illegal hunting practices. I am not calling for or asking for a Kum By Yaa moment or everyone getting along. If a person really is a hunter and enjoys it, they are passionate about it. I just think sometimes as a group, we let that passion over shadow reason such as the arguements concern ethical hunting situations versus legal hunting situations.

Again just my opinion, but Ethics fall under at least two categories, individual and situational. Legal hunting methods apply to all of us. So far the results of the poll are as I expected with practically everyone viewing the anti-hunting crowd being the enemy, but also as I expected, some folks do see another side to the coin.

Until hunters, and again I am going to use that term that you don't like, join together and take a stand against the illegal practices taking place, such as the PHASA issue, we are going to have a hard time keeping the anti forces from winning.

Again this is all just my opinion and I Thank everyone for their input.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
In light of some recent threads that have been started in other topic areas of AR, and in light of some of the recent threads in both the African and American hunting sections as of late,I am just curious to as to what people are really thinking.

I have read all the responses so far in this thread and I must say I agree with the idea that the biggest threat to hunting is the anti-hunting movement world wide. However the hunting and shooting community is not completely innocent in this issue.

As anyone knows the biggest threat to anything you want to discuss there is the image perception we, and the antis as a group present to those that are on the fence, so to speak.

The antis use emotional tactics with phonied-up pictures of pinned animals being shot with arrows against a fence. Many times these pictures are taken by the antis, of other antis doing the killing to use for their anti-hunting campaigns. This is a perception they want to show to entice folks to talk, about to others, and to donate money to the so-called cause! What they are doing is legal, but not ethical.

On the other side of the coin the perception we present to the on-fence people who vote for laws that prevent things they THINK they understand but have been influenced by those who want to outlaw an otherwise legal activity like hunting or item, like a firearm for hunting to hit from two sides.

In that vain, unschooled folks identify a so-called “BLACK GUNS” with the gangs, and the killing of people. When they see a hunter with a whitetail deer, or a wild hog in a picture while holding a “AK47” , or just see a neighbor getting in or out of his car with an AK47, they are immediately suspicious of that person being up to no good. These black guns are not really AK47s but to the general public that is the perception they give. Though these things are perfectly legal, the general public has no idea what Semi-auto means and when it is presented on TV involved in a crime, along with the anchor’s words AK47, no matter what black gun it is they automatically think machinegun, and crime. Then they see the neighbor, or hunter using what they consider to be a machinegun, right away they are on the anti hunting, and anti gun band-wagon.

We all know that the so-called semi-auto black gun is no different from your little semi-auto rabbit gun, still the perception is there. This is on our side but we tend to blame all or problems on the anti side of the coin.

So, I guess what I’m trying to say is though we don’t mean to, we are partly responsible for our own problems. However in my opinion we are no where as responsible as the anti-hunting/gun folks, and in that light the poll was not stupid but is just asking us to look a little closer in our own house, nothing more!


.............................................

Truth means very little........perception is everything.

IMHO the anti's are more about emotion than fact & facts very seldom change emotions.
As far as us all coming togeter, well, thats a horse of another color.
At my hunting lease I have a group of good friends, we are constanly debating/arguing about something, we're not mad at each other we just disagree about some things. If you want peace & harmony, avoid other humans.
This forum is important to me & I enjoy reading it several times a day. I've learned a lot & quite a bit of it came from some of these threads that got kinda testy.
My vote goes to the anti's.

I can't believe that no one has pointed out the US Government??!!

I think it is OBAMA and his anti-gun AG E. Holder and their pursuit against our Second Amendment...they are anti constitution and did you recently see Supreme Court Justice Bader-Ginsberg state that if she were to rewrite the Consitiution today she would NOT use our present Constitution as a basis??!! She is sworn to uphold the Constitution...so is the President and Congress....
Holder has finally testified that the guns to Mexico scam was intended to strengthen the Black Guns Ban
Here is our real threat!!
We must do our duty in the US this year for November- Big CHANGE!!....or we are toast!!

quote:

So, I guess what I’m trying to say is though we don’t mean to, we are partly responsible for our own problems. However in my opinion we are no where as responsible as the anti-hunting/gun folks, and in that light the poll was not stupid but is just asking us to look a little closer in our own house, nothing more!

Thank You very much Sir. You were one of the people I was hoping would weigh in on this and you did, and so much more eloquently than I ever could have.

Folks I do apologise if some of the stuff I come up seems stupid or simple minded, it is not meant to come across that way, but it does.

The anti's have too big a head start and because they deal directly with Emotional issues, not facts or logic, they will always garner support from the middle of the road crowd.

Yes, the U.S. Goverment in many ways is one of our enemies, not thru how we conduct ourselves participating in the past time that all of us have a deep and abiding passion for, but by letting an organization like HSUS gain the power base it has.

My whole reason for starting the poll was simply to see how many people gave thought to the concept that We, hunters are some times not the best Ambasseduers for our sport. We throw up too many dividing lines.

How many times has Saeed made the comment in some of the "Pissing Contests", that if it is legal, "What Is The Problem"?

Folks, we are in real danger of losing the ability to participate in something we all clearly love to do. Why does pointing out that some of the negative attitudes towards hunters/hunting is possibly being generated by hunters themselves cause everyone to want to shoot the messenger?

Mac, I do appreciate your input as I feel you are one of the folks with the experience and knowledge to view such issues from more than one side.

Hunters are not polarizing themselves into different groups.

Each group defines hunting differently. Non-hunters will decide our fate. How does your sub-group of hunters look to the ones who will decide?

The trick in life is to not get what you deserve. That's why forgiveness sells.

quote:

Originally posted by 470EDDY:
I can't believe that no one has pointed out the US Government??!!

I think it is OBAMA and his anti-gun AG E. Holder and their pursuit against our Second Amendment...they are anti constitution and did you recently see Supreme Court Justice Bader-Ginsberg state that if she were to rewrite the Consitiution today she would NOT use our present Constitution as a basis??!! She is sworn to uphold the Constitution...so is the President and Congress....
Holder has finally testified that the guns to Mexico scam was intended to strengthen the Black Guns Ban
Here is our real threat!!
We must do our duty in the US this year for November- Big CHANGE!!....or we are toast!!

Amen!

quote:

Fighting amongst ourselves, violating known laws, and plain just acting stupid. We are not helping our cause.

That mostly happens on AR. Not many other forums have as many armchair experts spoiling for a fight who will say anything to gratify themselves even at the expense of hunting.

I have to agree that this poll is pointless.

quote:

Hunters are not polarizing themselves into different groups.

To each his own.

One group wants/expects everyone to operate on a higher ethical plain, or they are not considered real hunters.

Another group says that if it is legal, what is the problem.

Others state that people shooting anmimals inside a high fence, regardless the acreage, shooting animals beyond 500 yards, hunting from a blind/stand overlooking a feeder or bait are shooters, not hunters.

The list goes on, and those are all examples of polarization.

quote:

In politics, polarization (or polarisation) is the process by which the public opinion divides and goes to the extremes. It can also refer to when the extreme factions of a political party gain dominance in a party. In either case moderate voices often lose power and influence as a consequence.

I personally see hunters becoming polarized on all sorts of issues, on all of the different forums I visit, AR is no different, and as is stated in the definition, moderate voices/middle of the road, no pun intended, hunters losing the ability to bring some reason into the issues.

If you don't see it, that is your perogative and you are welcome to it. I just see it on all levels across the hunting community. People look for ways to segregate themselves into little elitist groups that support their ideas of what hunting is/should be, and really do not view other peoples idea of what hunting is/should be as being proper.

Again, as others have pointed out a lot clearer than I have, the anti's are our Number One enemy, with our own goverment adding to the problem, so that almost any negative interactions among hunters themselves only adds to the problem.

quote:

I have to agree that this poll is pointless.

Thanks for your comment anyway, but nothing is pointless if it makes people stop for a minute or two and think.

as for the comment about arm chair experts, every site I have ever been on has them, it is not just limited to AR. One of the big differences however, on many sites, the arm chair experts run them, and Free Speech and thought, such as this pointless poll are not allowed.

At least on here people do have the chance of being heard so to speak.

We are all individuals with differing backgrounds, different goals in hunting. I used to look down on sport hunters that came to the bush area of Alaska I lived in because I saw them leaving with a set of Moose antlers and one 70# box of meat. I've packed enough Moose in my time to know they do not fit into a 70# box. The "guides" "outfitters" would give the rest to the food bank or local villages. (hopefully the meat was well cared for).

Since then I became what others would define as a trophy hunter. I have killed game in Africa and I am not allowed to bring meat back, only skin, skulls, and horns.

Crazyhorseconsulting you started this thread so maybe you ought to define what a hunter actually is so we can all adhere to your mold of that image. Obviously that will not stop those opposed to hunting from trying to stop what we do but at least the reset of us will know whether we live up to your standards of what a hunter is.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:
It is funny that this question should come up now. For some reason the idea that "hunters are hurting our sport" has been on my mind for the last several days.

I voted that the antis are the biggest threat, and I believe that they are the biggest threat by a large margin.

But, many of us hunters are hurting our sport in many ways. The racist crap that so many spout on forums such as this is one example. The "good ole boy" hunting shows sure don't help. Some of the commercials for hunting products are even worse. Littering in the woods by hunters is inexcusable, yet I see it all the time.

If hunting is to survive we hunters need to clean-up ranks. Also, we need to present our sport as a mainstream pursuit, not as the pastime of rednecks or the ultra rich.

We need to place an emphasis on the diversity within hunting(some publications/organizations seem to be making an effort).

We also need more women in the sport(a lot more). It will be hard for anyone to look at hunting as an "Good ole boy" club if we have a strong female presence.

If you have daughters, you owe it to our sport(and to them) to do everything you can to get them interested in hunting. My 2 and a half year old daughter is already shooting ducks, geese and deer each time we go hiking(she holds up her imaginary gun and says: "Bang! Bang! I got two daddy!" We then eat "them" for dinner. Yes, I am proud.)

All that we can do to the anti-hunters is debunk their arguments with facts. In reality their are fewer anti-hunters than there are hunters, but the fence sitters outnumber both groups combined. It is with the fence-sitters(the general public) that we can make headway.

Very well said!
I could not have said it better myself.
The antis are the greatest threat, but to many hunters give the antis to much ammo to attack us with.

With the dedicated antis it is usually a waste of time trying to convert them. However it is not a waste of time to counter them.

Real efforts can be expended on the general uninformed public however to influence them.

There are always bad examples in any population, so of course there are negative hunters and shooters harmful to the sport.

There are some aspects to hunting for example some might not like, eg blood. For example on game photos, some say, hide all any blood, or ban the photos from publication. But it is part of natural life and hunting. While not glorifying things like this, it shouldn't be necessarily hidden, but instead explained.

Same with being upfront about being a hunter. Hiding it un-necessarily just looks like it is something distasteful, instead of a genetic natural part of life.


JMO.

quote:

Crazyhorseconsulting you started this thread so maybe you ought to define what a hunter actually is so we can all adhere to your mold of that image. Obviously that will not stop those opposed to hunting from trying to stop what we do but at least the reset of us will know whether we live up to your standards of what a hunter is.

My, my, me define what a hunter actually is. That may be a vote of confidence for someone that barely graduated high school and for the most part raised in very rural north Texas. More so from a pretty simplistic person that tries not to hold anyone to standards of any kind.

With you folks kind endulgment, I will try my best to give my definition of what a hunter is or possibly sreive to be, without coming off to self righteous or like I have gone wobbly.

I started my hunting career in 1966/67 as a kid in high school in Newcastle, Texas population at that time 672 people. With the exception of the 27 plus years living in the Fort Worth area, 25 of which I worked as a Keeper at the Fort Worth Zoo, ending up a I approach my 62nd. birthday, living about 5 miles from the hopital I was born in and 8 miles or so north of where I graduated high chool. With that bit of background out of the way, I will try to head this down a easier to follow course.

My first hunting experiences were listening to older school mates or fellow class mates talking about hunting. My dad was born in 1897 in rural Tenn. and emigrated to Texas in 1910. He never did really hunt, loved to fish, but having grown up during that time frame in Texas, sport hunting as we think of it today was not even a gleam in anyone's eyes. Too many folks relied somewhat on subsistence hunting of small game for meat and trapping for extra income. deer numbers in texas were low andconfined to certain areas.

Fast forward back to the mid to late 60's when I started hunting and such activities as bird hunting, dove/quail/waterfowl to a lesser extent in that region had grown in popularity. Money was tight with my family especially, since by the time I reached my upper teens Dad was retired and Mom had never worked so our income was from odd jobs Dad did, his VA pension and his Social Security check and the summer jobs and a small job program at the school in Newcastle that I was eligable to participate in. By eligable, in the 1960's my families income was below the national poverty level.

I still managed to buy me a shotgun or two along, or borrow one from a neighbor before I bought my first one. My first few "hunting" trips involved me setting in the back seat of the car, dad driving a pasture road and me shooting dove out of trees if they set still long enough. At that day and time and in that area, that is how many folks learned how to "hunt".

After the first few trips, my parents started letting me go out on actual hunts with friends from school. Actual hunts where we were shooting at flying birds and putting together a decoy spread and building blinds, and birds killed were a bonus, we were getting to have experiences and I fell in love with those experiences and wanted more.

In mid 1969 I bought my first actual Big Game rifle outfit. I had been hand loading/reloadfing for my shotguns with a Lee hand loader since nid 12968 and did not see how loading for a rifle would be a big step for me. That first gun was a new Winchester Model 670 in 300 Win Mag with a steel tubed K6 El Paso made Weaver scope on it. My first Big Game animal was a small 8 point buck, that the tips of the antlers are on my hunting necklace, a buck that by todays "Standards" I would be ridiculed for shooting. I shot that buck about 7:00 a.m. on the Wednesday before Thankgiving in 1970, I had been 20 years old for slightly over 2 months and had been married to my first wife for slightly over a month. I was walking a trail near the fence line of the 160 acres I had sub-leased for $25.00 for the season, the limit at that time was 1 buck, the shot was basically off hand at about 150 to 160 yards, can't recall the exact loading but the bullet was a 165 grain hornady round nose, and it was one of my hand loads.

From those first days of my hunting career, I have been fortunate enough to been able with the help of my second wife Lora, and my job as a zookeeper, to go on some really wonderful hunts, that had I not moved away to where there was work in 1982, I would not been able to experience.

Hopefully I have not lost everyone, but Frostbit asked me to define or give "My" standards for a "Hunter". For those either patient or still awake, here is what my beliefs are.

My Definition Of, Or Standard For Hunters, by Randall W. Weems

1. Hunt Legally! Plain and Simple. No matter where on this planet you hunt, rules and regulations are in place and whether you agree with them or not, either obey them or go somewhere else that has laws you can accept better.

2. If you are going to hunt with a Professional, regardless of location on the Planet, make sure they are conducting business Legally. The only way to keep from getting yourself in unexpected trouble and to weed out those folks working on the wrong side of the line is to not do business with them and if possible expose them to other hunters.

3. Don't impose your personal ethical standards on other hunters. Ethics are personal, and over the years as both a client and a guide I have had plenty of opportunities to observe that most people operate under two sets of ethics, hypothetical and situational. From experience many folks show up in camp and operate under the hypothetical ethics for the first few days of the hunt, but as time gets shorter and they may be the only one in camp that has not connected with something and situational ethics come to the surface.

If you have high ethical standards, I salute you, I just do not have to share them. I do not hold people to mine, I expect the same courtesey from others.

Someone made a comment about being above water swatting a duck, good for them, I was damn glad to be able to go out and legally kill a duck by water swatting it after I nearly lost my left arm shortly before this past Christmas. If a Legal Hunting practice insults your sense of ethics, get the law changed to better fit your concepts or shut up.

4. Hunting is not a competetive sport in everyone's opinion. I go out hunting it is personal and ANYTHING I KILL IS A TROPHY TO ME, amnd other peoples opinions really do not matter. If I am guiding someone, I am going to do everything possible to put them on the type animal they want and if they are happy/satisfied with the outcome, that is a Trophy to me.

If aperson enjoys holding out for or only wanting to kill Record Book Animals, I applaud them their efforts and drive. Just because I or any other hunter does not have those same goals, does not me we are less a hunter/human or dedicated to our personal wants or desires, nor should it make our trophies and efforts trivial or meaningless.

5. Stop attacking other huters simply because they do not share you same thoughts/ideas/goals/concepts/ethics toward hunting.

6. Stop attacking other hunters over the means/methods they employ or take advantage of as long as it is LEGAL.

7. Stop telling people that they should not call themselves a hunter but just a shooter because of where they choose to hunt. Some folks around the country, the world have physical problems where they can not get out and go after animals. They have to rely on places like the HF properties and hunting from blinds watching a feeder or waterhole and by doing so it does not mean that they are not hunters, it just means that their hunting takes a different path. Even if a physically healthy person chooses to hunt that way, none of us have the right or the reason to belittle these folks.

In a nutshel my standards for a "Hunter" is someone that obeys the laws concerning the sport, hunts responsibly, does not belittle/badmouth other hunters over the animals they kill or the means or methods used as long as they are legal, acts in a respectful manner toward the game killed, i aware of the effects poorly displayed dead animals can have on others, realize that hunting practices/legalities are NOT The Same everywhere, and the people that we as a group need to impress or at least not alienate are the middle of the roaders that may not or don't hunt, but have no problem with us hunting as long as we operate under some form of decorum and respect.

Hope some of this made sense, if it didn't, I made no promises. I just believe that hunters need to cease the attacks in the ranks, work together to weed out those that do stuff illegally that reflects back badly on all of us, stop trying to make hunting a competitive sport, stop trying to change the mind of the anti's, that battle was lost on Day One, and start presenting ourselves as knowledgable, concerned individuals that respect nature, the game we hunt, mindful and informed on the role we play as a management tool for the continued existance of many species and not always species we hunt, and mindful of the concept that just because someone does not hunt, they also do not neccessarily want to stop us from hunting.

Andrew, by your defenition there is not a hunter on this or any other board. Anyone that says he or she has not violated a hunting regulation is not honest with themselves. Personally I get discussed with the mantra "If you don't do it my way you are unethical".

There is a huntung show personality that burnt my butt one too many times. It seems that everyone that did not hunt in a way he thought they should, his comment would be "they're giving the sport a black eye".
What needed to happen was for someone to give him 2 black eyes.
He is one of theses self important judgemental people that it's his way or no way.
I personally don't care for trapping, but it's leagal & others seem to enjoy it, so I simple don't partake in it & leave the trappers alone, unjudged!
Thank you CHC for stirring up a good debate.

I don't know Andrew from Adam, even though hev and I have exchanged a couple of emails, but I am reading ot interpreting Andrews comments differently than you, maybe I am wrong, but to me, Andrew was merely expanding on the thought that Brent Ebeling expressed.

I don't believe Andrew was stating that all hunters who have broken a game law are part of the problem, but people causing situations like what is taking place in Zimbabwe, and continueing to break the laws knowingly are part of the problem. Also people making stupid decisions, actions, and this can include legally taken animal are the ones that thru such actions, when they become public knowledge, give the rest of us a black eye. Maybe I am mis-interpreting Andrew's comments, or yours, not sure.

I do know one thing however, whether it is hunters, doctors, Law Enforcement Officers, all it takes is the stupid/irrational/emotional/illegal activities of a few, to tarnish the image of the many.

Die,
Well said.

Mr. Crazy,
"Legal" does not equal ethical.

Ethics and morals are usually determined by a society or a belief that there exists a "law maker" higher than yourself.

Define a hunter? Define an ethical hunter? Define a law abiding hunter? The last one is easist - hunt legal game within the confines of the law in the hunt area.

A "hunter" is someone who hunts quarry with the intent of capturing or killing it.

An "ethical hunter" employs methods and standards commonly accepted as "fair" or in a manner in keeping with societal norms.

Most of your list was not a definition of a hunter but a list of do's and don'ts and demands to not impose standards on you that you do not agree with.

I wish you luck in your quest to be considered a professional or a hunter or whatever.

PS - I am not sure what "swatting a duck" is.

Thanks for your comments, not sure what your major objection is concerning my definition of what a hunter is, but it is what I was asked for and I gave it, because that is what I believe constitutes a real hunter. It is my opinion and just as you are to yours, I am entitled to mine.

quote:

"Legal" does not equal ethical.

You are correct, legal does not equal ethical, but ethical can be illegal according to the written law. Mis-guided/directed ethics are no different than illegal tactics. The laws we have today were developed from ethical concerns addressed by those concerned sportsmen in the past. If something is that much of an ethical concern work toward getting a new law made to cover that activity.

quote:

An "ethical hunter" employs methods and standards commonly accepted as "fair" or in a manner in keeping with societal norms.

The problem here, is that there are no "Standardized Commonly Accepted Societal Norms" as ethics vary from region to region/state to state/country to country. What is considered Standard Operating Procedure in one area may be completely frowned on in another.

As for your other comments you are entitled to them, but just to focus my original reason for starting this poll, you seem to be quie ready to personally attack me, a hunter, that you do not know, have never met, know absolutely nothing about other from whatever posts of mine you may have read.

You provide glaring, positive proof, that it is much more important to you to discredit me and my stance in this discussion with out any actual knowledge about me. Thank You for providing positive proof that hunters are becoming much more ready to attack and discredit another hunter than establish open, civil dialog to address the issues that concern us as a group.

Randall,

With out starting a fight and with all humbleness...here is the problem as I see it.

When you talk about legal...we are dealing with laws in some 3rd world countries where law does not have the best intrest of the wildlife at heart.

Otherwise...you do make some valid points. Again...not trying to stir the pot.

But, Lane my question on the poll, is not just about laws and ethics in Third World countries, because as you well know, Anti-hunters are wanting hunting stopped World Wide.

The main reason the poll was placed on the African Hunting topic section is because it receives the most activity of any topic area, with the exception of the ARPF.

While having no experience in Africa, I do know from discussions in this topic area, the American Hunting topic area and the list goes on, there is a clear and definite division among hunters World Wide concerning the concepts of ethics versus legal. this division is not jusst centered around lions or any other single species, regardless of their population status.

When legal methods are proven to be detrimental for any species continued existance, then concerned sportsmen and other interested individuals need to gather and address the situation as what you and Aaron have been working for.

However, these arguements over ethics versus legalaities are not just limited to members of the Big Five or African species. They are constantly interjected into discussions about common species that have stable populations, across the planet.

I voted the hunters do more dammage. More specifically the ever increasing bunch of morons on television masquerading as hunting professionals. There are a few, very few, tastefully done. The greater majority behave so poorly it is no wonder the antis want to do away with us.